Gravity Can't Do This!

reply to post by turbofan


Gravity can't. But forces other than gravity can...and do.

The force from the impact of floors into others can cause this. You have shown this in this very post.

Why continue with the explosion theory when there is nothing but speculation being presented under the guise of "proof" of such?

More so than anyone, I'd love to find some photos or concerete evidence proving they were brought down by explosions. But the evidence does not go there. And many people need to stop doing the same.

reply to post by Six Sigma


Wow this again, like you think it proves anything?

No matter what was heard buildings can not fall into their own footprints from an uncontrolled collapse.

But regardless how many times do you have to be shown that explosives were heard, no matter what you spin them as they were heard, to claim they weren't is posting known false information.



Even the FBI was investigating explosive devices. If you don't hear those blasts in this vid then you need a hearing aid.



Now don't try to spin that as paint cans exploding, because you said 'no explosives were heard'. One or the other mate.

reply to post by Myendica

I 100% agree.. If not a full tower, maybe a 70% to scale .. I really think we'd be suprised with the results.. when we have to figure out how to really bring it down after the plane does nothing. we'll learn the truth then.

Yes but like people have been saying, either way (fall or not fall), people would have all kinds of accusations. There would have to be lots of witness to the building process.

Originally posted by ANOK



But regardless how many times do you have to be shown that explosives were heard,

Please edit your post to: "explosions" were heard.

Please point out in any of the videos on 9/11 that sound like this:

reply to post by richiev

I tend to go along with the idea of planes jetting into the towers and that being the reason the towers collapsed. No holograms. No hidden explosives. No mysterious military planes disguised as passenger planes. Just airliners full of fuel which crashed into the buildings. I consider myself a logical thinking person. I can see the logic in that being the cause of the WTC buildings coming down.

I tend to agree with you, but, then i look at building 7, and I feel confused about what to believe. I've seen soo many videos of other burning building, and none of them collapsed the way 7 did, most of them didn't collapses at all. If someone could give me a logical reason for that building to react the way it did, and show me other buildings w/ similar circumstances behaving the same way, I'd be more inclined to have less skepticism for the falling of the towers.

Originally posted by MidnightSunshine



I tend to agree with you, but, then i look at building 7, and I feel confused about what to believe. I've seen soo many videos of other burning building, and none of them collapsed the way 7 did, most of them didn't collapses at all. If someone could give me a logical reason for that building to react the way it did, and show me other buildings w/ similar circumstances behaving the same way, I'd be more inclined to have less skepticism for the falling of the towers.

MidnightSunshine..... Stump a truther.... Ask him why they fireproof ALL the STEEL in a building.

reply to post by Six Sigma

Please edit your post to: "explosions" were heard.

Please point out in any of the videos on 9/11 that sound like this:

Two questions:

1) Do all explosions sound alike, is it actually impossible to aurally mask or stagger explosions?
If so please provide evidence to this effect.

2) In order for something to count as an explosion is it a requirement that the videographer have foreknowledge and properly set up equipment?
Please support your supposition that a recording of this quality must exist if the explosion existed.

Answers on the back of an envelope please.

While your at it you can show me a video of the Concorde hitting that hotel, by your reasoning it didn't if no good video of it actually hitting is available. Actually, along the same lines, should we conclude from the fact that there is no video of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon that there was no plane?

Consistent reasoning is not an optional extra.

Originally posted by Humint1
reply to post by turbofan

 

Gravity can't. But forces other than gravity can...and do.

Wow, really? What force can accelerate an object in mid-air over and above gravity? How do you change
the velocity of a free falling object outside of the accleration of gravity?

How does an object split apart in mid-air and then accelerate in a perpendicular direction from the original
trajectory.

Gee, must be dem floors falling!

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
I'll scale the width of the tower and show all of my work. I'll even try to find a clearer video.

So how about showing "all of your work" then

How about answering my questions so we can proceed?

Do you agree that the Twin Towers are 208 feet wide? Yes, or No.

Do you agree that the acceleration of gravity in New York City is approximately 32.1704 ft./s./s? Yes, or No?

Do you also agree that any calculations do wind resistance should be omitted (it will help your case!!! SAY YES!)

Originally posted by turbofan
How do you change the velocity of a free falling object outside of the accleration of gravity?

How does an object split apart in mid-air and then accelerate in a perpendicular direction from the original
trajectory.

As none of that actually happened....

What are you talking about?

Originally posted by turbofan
Do you also agree that any calculations do wind resistance should be omitted

No, as the dust cloud the object came through would be effected by wind resistance - which it looks like you want to ignore as it destroys your argument!

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
Do you also agree that any calculations do wind resistance should be omitted

No, as the dust cloud the object came through would be effected by wind resistance - which it looks like you want to ignore as it destroys your argument!

OMG! I had to quote this because it shows how uneducated you are!

If an object is accelerating through WIND RESISTANCE it means there is additoinal energy propelling the object
to overcome WIND RESISTANCE!!!

It's in your best interest to remove wind restistance from the equation.

The dust cloud has nothing to do with this. We are going to track objects changing velocity from TWO POINTS outside
of the debris cloud.

Got it?

Agree to the prior values, or post up your comments and alternate values.

Originally posted by turbofan
I had to quote this because it shows how uneducated you are!

You simply do not understand that a dust cloud will be effected by wind resistance, as the dust particles weigh bugger all, whilst a heavier bit of rubble falling through the same wind resistance will not be effected as much. You have really shown your ignorance of physics - you have no understandingat all of how things actually work!

If an object is accelerating through WIND RESISTANCE it means there is additoinal energy propelling the object to overcome WIND RESISTANCE!!!

You do not understand once again - wind resistance effects different objects differently, depending on their weight, size and area. But according to you if there is wind resistance no object could accelerate due to gravity!

It's in your best interest to remove wind restistance from the equation.

No, as it completely destroys your claim, you think the dust cloud should fall at the same speed as freefall rubble.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
I had to quote this because it shows how uneducated you are!

You simply do not understand that a dust cloud will be effected by wind resistance,

Oh really?

What does the dust cloud have to do with objects accelerating beyond the dust cloud?

The wind resistance of the dust in the cloud has absolutely NOTHING to do with the accelerating of the
object moving ahead of the dust cloud.

No, I never once said, or never once implied the dust cloud should fall at the same rate as the object, because
if you read the last few replies and posts I have been talking about measuring the velocity of the object using
TWO POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE DUST CLOUD!

Got it?

Originally posted by turbofan
No, I never once said, or never once implied the dust cloud should fall at the same rate as the object

You did actually - you must have "forgotten" when you said

"The top photo shows the
debris cloud descending. The bottom photo shows one of many accelerated pieces of debris shooting
out of the cloud.

Again, IMPOSSIBLE by gravity as there is no additional force available to accelerate individual object
out of the dust cloud. "

So you have just shown you have no clue what you posted 4 pages ago!

Hey smart guy, I want to measure "ONE OF THE MANY PARTICLES SHOOTING OUT OF THE DUST CLOUD".

Do you feaking understand?!!!!!

Think of a pack of cars....the pack of cars slows down, but ONE CAR shoots out of the pack.

We don't care about the pack, we're going to find out how fast the ONE CAR is moving.

The pack can have wind resistance, or apply their brakes, or whatever. We don't care about THOSE cars.

We are going to measure the CAR THAT SHOT OUT OF THE PACK and find the CHANGE IN VELOCITY
using TWO DISTINCT POINTS after it left the pack.

Capisce?

reply to post by turbofan

It's in your best interested to remove wind restistance from the equation.

NO we want the drag factor left in the equation and we want to know what drag factor you use for your falling objects. With out aerodynamic drag, a feather and a bowling ball would hit the ground at the same time. Why does the Truth Movement always want to leave air out of the equation.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by turbofan

 

It's in your best interested to remove wind restistance from the equation.

NO we want the drag factor left in the equation and we want to know what drag factor you use for your falling objects. With out aerodynamic drag, a feather and a bowling ball would hit the ground at the same time. Why does the Truth Movement always want to leave air out of the equation.

IT DOES NOT MATTER! This is the problem with some of the people debating this topic, you just don't
understand.

IT HURTS YOUR CASE!

If we pick an object that is moving faster than acceleration by gravity without wind resistance, and then add
wind resistance to the equation....THE REQUIRED FORCE MUST BE HIGHER TO MOVE THAT SAME OBJECT
THE SAME DISTANCE IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME WITH ADDITONAL DRAG.

Highschool Physics. Apparently you have none.

Originally posted by turbofan
If we pick an object that is moving faster than acceleration by gravity

Except there is no such object....

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
If we pick an object that is moving faster than acceleration by gravity

Except there is no such object....

Well, that remains to be proven huh?

So can we move forward with the prior values now? 208 ft. tower width; 32.1704 ft/s/s, no drag. Cool?

Thank you for finally understanding the concept of this exercise!